Originally posted by TheBucsFanI don't know what is more amazing: That Obama and his allies managed to squander such an amazing amount of political support and goodwill in just two years, or that people's collective response has been to turn to the group of people who pissed them off enough to have such support for Obama in the first place.

I look forward to two years of whining and finger pointing, followed by another election between people accusing each other of being whining finger pointers.

Elections are decided by "independents". These are people who have no real core opinions on anything, and tend to bounce back and forth from election to election based on things like ads and who would be good to have a beer with. Like a child with a choice of toys they play with one until they are bored, then go to another toy with which they will eventually get bored as well. Our elections are decided by the 10% of the electorate who basically want lots of totally contradictory things from the government, and they want them now.

It's telling that you would consider such a thumpin' (which is a registered trademark of George W. Bush, circa the 2006 midterms) as "breaking even." Even W knew when his side got thumped, and wasn't afraid to say so.

It's telling that you would consider such a thumpin' (which is a registered trademark of George W. Bush, circa the 2006 midterms) as "breaking even." Even W knew when his side got thumped, and wasn't afraid to say so.

They broke even when all signs pointed to the GOP getting both houses during the summer. The nomination of O'Donnell, McMahon and Angle sealed the deal for the Dems. The GOP voter turnout was huge, yet they lost a chance to put the nail in the Obama coffin. The Tea Party is a mixed blessing. Yes, they did great with the house, but they killed them for the Senate. We also have three senate other races, two of which Dems are winning by very slim margins. The other in Alaska is what I stated in that first thread which is a GOP civil war and this is probably just the beginning. Wait til we get to the Presidential nominations when one of those guys is convinced the Tea Party not the GOP nomination will get them elected.

Enjoy the victory, but there is nothing stopping those candidates pulling another Scott Brown on the Tea Party. Its real easy to blame government for all the worlds' ills when you are in outsider, its hard to be part of an establishment where earmarks and "waste" equals jobs for your area. Some of them in the House can hide from some of those bills, but once unemployment reaches double digits in those districts, whatever Tea Party pledge they made is thrown out the window to get re-elected. It is a major vote against Obama, no doubt, but its not the death blow it could have been. Now, the real question is can the GOP govern without doing anything or passing laws that have no compromise in a Senate they know will filibuster it?

Originally posted by lotjxWait til we get to the Presidential nominations when one of those guys is convinced the Tea Party not the GOP nomination will get them elected.

The Tea Party is not an actual party like Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, the Green Party, the Alaskan Independence Party, and the like.

Running as an independent or new third party candidate for President requires a person to spend the majority of their time drumming up signatures in the various states. That's why Pat Buchanan took over the Reform Party in 2000 so that he could co-opt the ballot access that the party had from Perot's '96 run.

However, as a voter in an open primary state, I do plan to vote Republican in the next primary to try to lean towards what I either feel is a more acceptable candidate or towards a candidate who the Democrats can beat (e.g. Sarah Palin).

Speaking of the Blue Dog Democrats, they got mostly shellacked last night. Something like half the Blue Dogs lost their seats. Can't say this is a big loss for the Dems, since having people in your party undermining you at every turn is in some ways worse than having opponents in Congress.

Intjx, an excellent response you posted. With politics being so polarized these days, there is no center anymore.

Interesting fact, over half the democrats who voted against Obama's health care bill were defeated. This to me just shows you can't compromise and expect to get votes.

The tea party types will end up bending over for the republican leadership. They will vote for the established republicans to take leadership roles in the house. And the Tea Party isn't "really interested" in balancing the budget... just ask them how many want Social Security, medicare, VA benefits, and military spending cut. In fact, they nearly started a riot in Pennsylvania when they asked a tea party gathering, how many were getting Medicare, Social Security, and VA benefits.

They need to do what the British just did, an across the board cut on spending, regardless of program. Say a 20 percent cut on social security, welfare, transportation, military, etc... Every program, cut 20 percent period.

Originally posted by Big BadSpeaking of the Blue Dog Democrats, they got mostly shellacked last night. Something like half the Blue Dogs lost their seats. Can't say this is a big loss for the Dems, since having people in your party undermining you at every turn is in some ways worse than having opponents in Congress.

What does worry me, though, is this: the moderate is really an endangered species. Blue Dog Democrats are going away. The Republicans are moving toward the right. The whole thing is getting more polarized. I don't mean to point fingers; I'm just saying that it's something we're going to have to confront.

It seemed like a lot of the Blue Dogs went beyond just being 'moderate' and actively went out to undermine Obama's plans, though. Your point about moderates vanishing in both parties is correct, however. A moderate Democrat like Ben Nelson or (now) Joe Manchin can stay because the Dems have no hope of electing anyone else in those states otherwise, but a moderate Republican seems likely to be primaried out of contention quickly. We already saw it with O'Donnell, Angle and other Tea Partiers getting nominations ahead of more mainstream Republicans.

I think, regardless of statements by various folks, the mainstream of what is called the Republican party today is the conservative movement. My congressman (newly elected) was not a "tea party" candidate, but I am sure most people on here can guess that I am pretty much aligned with that movement. I believe we are taxed too much and that the federal government is spending money on thing not in the constitution. And while my congressman never did any tea party stuff, his platform agrees with all of that.

The moderates of the Republican party are not the mainstream of the party. Of course, they are certainly welcome to their positions, and if their constituents are willing to elect them, then they are in the mix, as are the more conservative Democrats and of course, the various lefty Democrats.

Because, even though, in theory, we have two parties, in fact, we have three. Conservatives, Liberals and WWs (wishy-washys)(ie: "moderate" Republicans and "moderate" Democrats).

I must tell you, as a conservative, I hope my congressman does NOT work with the Democrats and WWs, and works to reduce taxes and non-constitutional authorized spending. I encourage the other 104 or so Freshman congresspeople, all but 10 of which are (mostly) conservative Republicans to do the same. The encouraging thing is that of those, almost half of those elected have little or no government experience, so they won't automatically fall in at the feeding trough.

I am encouraged. Very encouraged, but am taking a wait and see attitude. To see if these people really mean what they said. Politicians usually do not, of course. But so many of these folks haven't had that long training in lying that long term politicians have.

Can we dream of a term limit amendment in the Congress?

We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

You can dream, but I think it might be tough to get 2/3 in the House, and I'll say slightly past impossible to get 2/3 in the Senate. Through state legislatures and constitutional conventions, a slight shot, but then those same state legislators would be pressured into enacting term limits on themselves.

Originally posted by wannaberockstarWouldn't establishing official term limits just limit the right of voters to choose their representative? I mean, if someone is doing good, why should they be forced to retire early?

Just out of curiosity (honest; not snarking or trying to trap, just genuinely curious) do you feel this way about all public offices, like President and state Governors? That is, do you think that existing term limit laws for those holding positions in the executive branch of the government should be eliminated? I ask because I often hear the viewpoint against term limits advanced when it pertains to legislators, but I can't recall ever seeing any serious movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

And, as long as I'm asking questions:

Originally posted by AWArulzI must tell you, as a conservative, I hope my congressman does NOT work with the Democrats and WWs, and works to reduce taxes and non-constitutional authorized spending.

When you say "non-constituional authorized spending", exactly what do you mean? Are you referring to all programs that are not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? For example, are you including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as examples of non-constitutional authorized spending? Again, as with the earlier question, I'm asking not to trap or to play "gotcha", but just so that I'm clear as to where you're coming from, and which specific federal programs you feel your representative should be working to eliminate.

I thank you both (and anyone else who chooses to respond) in advance for taking the time to answer.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieJust out of curiosity (honest; not snarking or trying to trap, just genuinely curious) do you feel this way about all public offices, like President and state Governors? That is, do you think that existing term limit laws for those holding positions in the executive branch of the government should be eliminated? I ask because I often hear the viewpoint against term limits advanced when it pertains to legislators, but I can't recall ever seeing any serious movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

I'm not the person whom you were asking, but for me: I think there's a big difference between term limits for executive offices, ESPECIALLY President, and those for legislators. One President can have a really hugs influence on the country. It's a hugely powerful position to begin with, and when you then add several terms' worth of appointments to the Supreme Court and other top Federal courts, that's an awful lot of power for one person. FDR had an enormous effect on our history, and while I personally think that a lot of that effect was positive, I do think there's legitimate cause for concern about what could have happened.

But in a legislature, no one person has that much power. And to the extent that power does concentrate in a few hands, that can be addressed through other means (e.g. reducing the role of seniority in committee assignments).

There are two other things that worry me about term limits. One is that if term limits become reality, more power will go to the people behind the scenes who we don't get to know or vote on. I think a lot of districts would have a Democratic or Republican Congressional chief of staff who would effectively control his district's vote without personally facing the voters. The other is that it would exacerbate the problem of government officials helping businesses in exchange for cushy jobs when they leave office. I don't like the idea that at any given time, there would be a substantial percentage of members of Congress who know that they're never going to be voted on again, but who also know that they're going to be applying for lobbying jobs soon. That's a dangerous combination. (A president in his second term rarely has real need of such a job; ex-Presidents have tons of options that aren't open to retiring two-term Congresspeople.)

(Oh, and I agree with CRZ about letting Arnold--or Jennifer Granholm--run for President.)

Elections are decided by "independents". These are people who have no real core opinions on anything, and tend to bounce back and forth from election to election based on things like ads and who would be good to have a beer with. Like a child with a choice of toys they play with one until they are bored, then go to another toy with which they will eventually get bored as well. Our elections are decided by the 10% of the electorate who basically want lots of totally contradictory things from the government, and they want them now.

I feel this is a very unfair generalization of independents. I am a registered independent. I have never made a decision based on who I'd like to have a beer with. I would never believe a word I see or hear in a campaign ad (thank you factcheck.org). No, I am an independent because I like the freedom it affords me. I personally dont think blindly voting for your party regardless of who is running is intelligent. I know many voters who are registered with a party do not do this, but this is the same type of generalization you displayed above. I tend to lean a little more conservative politically(both fiscally and in my belief that we need to adhere more rigidly to the principles in our Constitution), but I have lost faith in the Republican Party's ability and desire to do the things I want my representatives to do. That is why, as an independent, I look for candidates with ideas and qualifications that suggest they may actually have a degree of competency once in office. As for voting for contradictory things, I hate to break it to you, but both parties are constantly contradicting themselves. I would never vote for a candidate who goes against my core principles, but am willing to compromise on what I might consider to be fringe principles.I can't argue with the point that voters tend to contradict themselves almost as much as politicians do, but its hard to reconcile things like wanting a more compassionate government with the desire for lower taxes and a smaller overall government.

Free will is another big factor.

Thomas Jefferson sums it up pretty well:

Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

BONUS FUN:I stumbled upon this quote while trying to find the full quote above. I believe it's especially poignant given our current political landscape:

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man."

I guess the bottom line is whether you belong to a party or not, you have a right to vote and as long as you can cast those votes based on intelligent, rational and independent thought its a good thing.

Originally posted by spfElections are decided by "independents". These are people who have no real core opinions on anything, and tend to bounce back and forth from election to election based on things like ads and who would be good to have a beer with. Like a child with a choice of toys they play with one until they are bored, then go to another toy with which they will eventually get bored as well. Our elections are decided by the 10% of the electorate who basically want lots of totally contradictory things from the government, and they want them now.

I'm an "independent" and I don't think it's fair to say I have no core opinions on anything. I am very passionate about several issues, personally. When I get ready to vote, come election time, I try to inform myself as good as I can about each issue the candidate stands for and then make a decision on who to vote for based on how close they are to my views or who I think would do a better job. I vote for the issues not for the person with an 'R' or a 'D' next to their name.

Though, I admit, there's not too many places to go to these days to get an *honest* breakdown of each candidates issues without the bomb throwing and negative advertising. It's hard to know what is true and what isn't in politics these days and it's disheartening.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieJust out of curiosity (honest; not snarking or trying to trap, just genuinely curious) do you feel this way about all public offices, like President and state Governors? That is, do you think that existing term limit laws for those holding positions in the executive branch of the government should be eliminated? I ask because I often hear the viewpoint against term limits advanced when it pertains to legislators, but I can't recall ever seeing any serious movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

Honestly? I'm not entirely sure if I agree how far term limits should go but that's only because I haven't really looked into what pros and cons would come out of it (I know, I know.. research about issues has no place in politics).

I mean, sure, I don't really see anything bad about letting someone serve until the people vote him out. Heck, if they keep sending him or her back, then he must be doing something right. I'd say that the court of public opinion is strong enough when it comes to politics to take care of anyone who gets caught in any particularly scandalous situations. I'm sure there is some downside to not have term limits too, however.

The 22nd Amendment only came into being after FDR, correct? What was the reason, originally? Wikipedia is a bit unclear on "why" it was put into place.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieJust out of curiosity (honest; not snarking or trying to trap, just genuinely curious) do you feel this way about all public offices, like President and state Governors? That is, do you think that existing term limit laws for those holding positions in the executive branch of the government should be eliminated? I ask because I often hear the viewpoint against term limits advanced when it pertains to legislators, but I can't recall ever seeing any serious movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

Honestly? I'm not entirely sure if I agree how far term limits should go but that's only because I haven't really looked into what pros and cons would come out of it (I know, I know.. research about issues has no place in politics).

I mean, sure, I don't really see anything bad about letting someone serve until the people vote him out. Heck, if they keep sending him or her back, then he must be doing something right. I'd say that the court of public opinion is strong enough when it comes to politics to take care of anyone who gets caught in any particularly scandalous situations. I'm sure there is some downside to not have term limits too, however.

The 22nd Amendment only came into being after FDR, correct? What was the reason, originally? Wikipedia is a bit unclear on "why" it was put into place.

(edited by wannaberockstar on 5.11.10 0300)

One of the reasons given for Presidential term limits is that he got too much power. He stuffed the Courts with his own people, he created the New Deal and other things that a person with two terms could not do. Obama and Bush II proved that in even one term you could do a lot like reform Health Care, go to war twice, reform the Education system as well as get some people in the Supreme Court, Obama already got two in before the halfway mark. I would like to see term limits as well, but the one I would love to see and it will never happen is the Supreme Court. That should not be a lifetime appointment. 10 years max. That is too much power for one person to have. I also hate the idea of these people "retiring" when the party that got them their seat is back in power again. Its utter bullshit.

I am not going to attack independents for switching parties. I was an indy before 2008 and changed to Dem to vote for Obama against Hilary. If states got rid of these closed primary rules, you would see a lot more independents and maybe an actual independent party on a national scale that wasn't a joke.

Yet, I do agree some not all independent voters are just bandwagon jumpers or worse spoiled kids. The economy is going to take years to rebuild and people expecting it to be rebuilt with a divided government are smoking weed. The GOP has already drawn the line in the sand that Dems have to do everything their way now and they won't compromise on anything. I don't think that most voters wanted that, but that is what they are going to get. A government divided that will not do anything for the next two years or beyond. If I were the Dems, I would compromise on the Taxes and maybe let them tweak Health Care, but if they run every day on trying to repeal Health Care with a 9% unemployment rate, their giant win on Tuesday will be a slaughter two years from now. It will be their version of the government shut down in 1995 where the country just turned on them. It should be one vote and then move on to actually doing something useful.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieAnd, as long as I'm asking questions:

Originally posted by AWArulzI must tell you, as a conservative, I hope my congressman does NOT work with the Democrats and WWs, and works to reduce taxes and non-constitutional authorized spending.

When you say "non-constituional authorized spending", exactly what do you mean? Are you referring to all programs that are not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? For example, are you including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as examples of non-constitutional authorized spending?

The answer to your question is - yes, pretty much. Of course, Social Security and Medicare and programs that citizens pay into (like insurance) and receive those benefits later in life. The ones who are in it (and have paid in) should receive the results of their insurance payments. I would be for eliminating/allowing opt outs on those programs. I mean, government workers and some other workers can currently opt out, so that should be extended to everyone.

Medicaid is really a series of state run programs that receives subsidies from the federal government. There's no constitutional backing for that, but I think it's a good thing to allow citizens to make contributions to it willingly and allow the government to distribute it. I would be willing to do so as long as the government showed its ability to be judicious in distributing it. But frankly, there are any number of agencies in my local area who are (and would be ) more effective at receiving and using the same funds to benefit the same people. The problem with medicaid is more of cost of transfer. Some states (Texas is a good example) are pretty effective, while some are not.

I think one of the things I really hope our new Congress does is eliminate the so-called "earmarks" - costly projects attached to needed legislation in order to get votes to pass the legislation. So, if Senator Billy wants to get his Transportation bill passed, he bribes Senator Tommy by adding a bill to build a road in his district as an amendment to his bill, so Senator Tommy votes for his bill. That crap has to stop.

Is a line item Veto for the President too much to ask then?

We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift